End of 2012: Potpourri (Not a List of Extreme Events!)
End of 2012: Potpourri
Climate-wise in the U.S., it has been a year of heat and drought. This year will go down as the warmest in the continental U.S. There have been many extreme events, and it is quite fashionable this year to list extreme events. Here are a few:
Angela Fritz Wunderground Blog - worldly with good discussion
Jeff Masters Summary of the U.S. Fire Season
Climate Central - U.S. focused list.
Washington Post - A more global perspective, including the cold spell in Europe
Al Jazeera - A search of stories from around the globe
The Weather Channel - Top 20 weather stories
Enough: I have listed more at the end. What has struck me as most compelling is how quickly we are seeing the emergence and convergence of a global picture of a warming planet. The weather is evolving in this environment of generally increasing temperature and more moist air. This evolution is consistent with what is expected from theory and predicted by models. The warming that is observed in the Arctic, the reduction of sea ice, the melting of ice sheets, and the theory-based link between these changes in the Arctic and middle-latitude weather – this collection of observations and knowledge is one of the most obvious examples of a coherent picture of the growing accumulation of heat in the Earth’s environment.
In a radio interview last week, I told the reporter why I did not like “new normal” as a way to communicate climate change. That term suggests that we have shifted from an old “normal” situation to a “new” normal situation. It suggests some flavor of stability in a new environment, but we are only at the beginning of the warming that we will see from increasing carbon dioxide. In ten years we will have the next new normal, then another in twenty years. If we look at our emissions of carbon dioxide, which are the primary cause of warming, any progress we make on reducing emissions is in the spirit of they are not as high as they could be.
Carbon Visuals provides a set of interesting figures that help to convey the emissions of carbon dioxide. The figures also suggest the amount of carbon dioxide that we will release if we continue with the use of fossil fuels as the main fire for our economic well being. This image from Carbon Visuals shows the amount of fossil fuels already held in reserve by the oil companies and compares that to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prior to 1750 (pre-industrial) and what we have already released into the atmosphere.
Figure 1: Caption from Unburnable Carbon @ Carbon Visuals : “Summary of the current situation. The blue cube is the total volume of all the carbon dioxide gas in the air in 1750 (before the growth of fossil fuels). The light pink volume is the extra, man-made carbon dioxide in the air now. The dark pink volume is the amount of carbon dioxide that would enter the atmosphere if the declared fuel reserves of fossil fuel companies were ever used. The red line indicates the point at which the warming would be greater than 2 °C.”
The same graph is in the Washington Post, but with some numbers. One number is that we can still release about 565 billion tons of carbon dioxide and remain below the trillion tons that has been proposed as the emissions total that would limit average surface air warming to 2 degrees Celsius. (That's the little pink box with the "2 °C of Warming") The other number is that about 2.8 trillion tons of carbon dioxide are in the declared reserves of energy companies. (That's the big "Declared Reserves" box at the top.) (see Bill McKibben’s “Do the Math").
Readers of my blog know that I see no evidence that we will limit our emissions in a way that will keep average warming to 2 degrees Celsius. I teach that we need to be planning for 4 degrees Celsius. We are already seeing fundamental changes in our weather and climate, and we are just at the beginning. Here at the end of the year, I am not optimistic about either U.S. or global policy to curb carbon dioxide emissions on the short-term (4 year) political landscape. Where I anchor the most optimism is in the students I see coming from high schools and colleges who have environmental science and sustainability as core interests and core values. I also see their take on the continuing political arguments that dismiss scientific knowledge and create chaotic energy and environmental policy. It is a take of growing irrelevance and irresponsibility of our political system, which ultimately impacts on our economy and technological competitiveness. So my optimism lies in the growing presence of the emerging sustainability generation in education, business, and government. It is the season for youthful salvation.
I want to end this entry with a new website that I was made aware of by Clark Weaver. It is called Temperature Trends .org, and calculates historical trends in congressional districts. Check it out, and use the Contact Temperature Trends to help them make it better.
r
If you are here looking for Mahlman memory piece, it is here.
Glaciers and Global Warming by Jeremy Bassis. Give it some more hits!
More Year in Review Links
National Public Radio - Discussion of the Year.
ABC News - Photo Gallery of U.S.
Huffington Post - Extreme Weather and Climate Change (original story Seth Borenstein from AP)
Fox News - Actually same Seth Borenstein from AP as at Huffington Post.
Fox News In a Way - An interesting bundling of a Fox News story on You Tube
National Public Radio - More people seeing connection between extreme weather and climate change.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index
Ah. I see. You insert he suggestion that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the warming, refuse to back it up, and offer instead more diversion and flipping the argument around. Very rich indeed.
Regardless, of who asked it, I was hoping to see your answer, because it may have shed light on the claims you've made. But in the absence of such, I find myself supporting goosegirl1's assertion, and declare your argument as baloney as well.
I have no problem with your comment that I have bolded, but I am still having difficulty in understanding your true purpose in these discussions. Spin and bias are human flaws and you accent quite well that these flaws are present on both sides of the issue. Even scientist have these flaws. However, with the scientist, the science must support their talking points or it is soon discovered that they have allowed their own bias to supersede the science or they have misinterpreted the data they have used. The denial industry side of the discussions rarely uses science at all to make their claims and it attacks the observations, the data, the scientist and the messages that the science gives us. Pointing out the flaws in human nature has its place in society, but what point does this serve with the actual science?
Is there bias in the physics? When the physics involved shows us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is this biased? When the observations show us that the level of CO2 has been increasing at a faster pace since the beginning of the industrial revolution is this also biased? When observations have shown that mankind has stripped a considerable percentage of the rain forests is this just a biased observation? ... In other words, what point are you trying to make here? That mankind is flawed? Is this a new revelation to us? Certainly we should look at and expose the exaggerated claims that will be made by both sides of the issue, but the scientist themselves tend to underestimate their claims when they cannot say, with absolute certainty, of what the science shows. The climatologist can use observations to make their claims that mankind's activities are putting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere. The climatologists can use observations that the CO2 levels are rising. The climatologist can use physics and claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The climatologist can compile all of this knowledge and make the statement that our activities will lead to a warming of the climate. What climatologist will not claim is anything that they do not know with absolute certainty. What will the CO2 levels be in 2075? What will the temperatures be in 2075? How much ice will be lost by 2075? How much will sea levels by 2075? Climatologist will not make any claims that they cannot support with the science.
The denial industry will work by creating doubt and by instilling confusion. While I do not consider you to be a hardcore member of the denial industry your methods of discussion are not dissimilar to that of the denial industry. Either by your own design or not, you tend to be mimicking the denial industry.
It is analogous to us getting our climate information from NOAA or from Dr. Seuss. Which do you prefer?
Second, one doesn't "feel obfuscated" any more than one "feels obscured". There are several other word choices you might wish to consider.
Third, Climate Progress is run by Joe Romm, who earned both a Bachelor of Science degree and a Ph.D. in Physics from MIT. He has taught at Columbia University, authored numerous books, and served as Acting Assistant Secretary (among other capacities) at the U.S. Department of Energy. Anthony Watts, on the other hand, never completed a college course or earned a degree, and his entire professional meteorology experience has been as weather reader at a several broadcast outlets in a pair of small market towns. This is no "Call to Authority"; it's simply stating facts.Definitely. But, of course, not all agendas are equal. Romm's agenda is to promote honest and accurate science in the hope that policymakers will understand what's happening to our planet and thus do something to avert the coming catastrophe. Watts' agenda--as ideologically driven a one as I've ever seen--is to help ensure that the current fossil fuel-only paradigm is allowed to continue as long as possible, and at any and all costs to the environment, public health, or future generations, so that profits may be maximized.
Now, again: do you have a polite response to Daisyworld's direct questions in #90?
One side's agenda is to examine climate science - an overview of all of it. Having done that and discovered that there is a HUGE consensus in the climate scientific community that AGW/CC is real, there is a new agenda for many of us. To try to understand the this huge threat to humans and their civilization. This agenda includes examining the current climate science, including the details and dynamics of AGW/CC and new findings about it. (I think that's a fair analog to the purpose of the climate portion of this website ) Then we try to understand what must be done to mitigate the negative effects with respect to human civilization - a really big task.
The other side's agenda - the denialists - seems to be that, since AGW/CC "would be so disastrous if it were true" they must go into "denial mode" and clutch at every little iota of anti-AGW/CC "evidence" that pops up, scientific or not, no matter how flawed and ridiculous it is. They seem highly motivated by the horror of the truth to the point that they will go to ridiculous lengths to attempt to use that so-called evidence to plant seeds of doubt, and crudely attempt to "deny" the overwhelming reality of the real scientific consensus supporting AGW/CC. They attack spokespersons like Al Gore while refusing to read or understand real scientists. They support off-the-wall anti-AGW writings by both non-scientists and scientists with no substantive climate change research and investigation experience. They absolutely refuse to read and discuss information at RealClimate and SkepticalScience where almost all of their claims have been solidly refuted. They simply attack and use many of the Fox News style propaganda techniques to plant distrust and doubt. (Thanks, Daisyworld for your referrals to particular posts that utilize these "tricks of the trade.")
These are the same people who most certainly wouldn't set foot on an airliner that had a 95% probability of crashing before landing safely at it's destination. They even weep over the potential economic effects and inconveniences of trying to counter the human contribution to AGW/CC, while ignoring the complete and utter disaster of doing nothing about AGW/CC.
That's how I see the respective "agenda" of each side.
(I wonder if there will actually be any "intelligent and logical" responses to my view - restating the denial position rather than attack, attack, attack.)
Link
What the heck are you talking about. Your link goes to a bunch of science fiction-like scenarios such as a sudden leap to 800°F surface temps as on Venus? Those tabloid like videos have nothing to do with the reality of the science of current the AGW/CC situation.
Is it a truly lame attempt at humor by a desperate denialist that is that is so far out that it went over my head?
Or is it an attempt to convey your belief that the concept current global warming is funny and not real?
Should I have replied "ROFLMAO"??
Rookie & Xulonn: I couldn't have said it better myself. Very well stated.
As far as the Fox News style propaganda techniques I've been pointing out over the holiday season, consider it a Christmas present. Everyone here who has been working hard to prevent the dissemination of false information about climate change deserves to know the specifics about the attack tactics used against them. They can be very surreptitious and frustrating, drawing us away from the main subject time and time again. Rest assured that there are people outside of the climate science field who are aware of this problem, and have analyzed the techniques to make the public more aware. We're not alone in this struggle.
I'm not going to hold my breath. Goosegirl1 had mentioned she's been trying to get an answer out of TomballTXPride for weeks now, but her tactic is to fall silent, then come back a little while later to talk about something else. It seems like anytime Tomball is challenged to prove her assertions, it's met with deflection and diversion. She's actually quite adroit if not taciturn.
That's fine. All we can do is keep asking. Maybe someday we'll actually get an answer that can be discussed properly.
It's nothing new. Space science and climate change are related, of course, but some attempt to confuse the rest of us by suggesting a connection that borders on ridiculous. Consider this clip where FoxNews was interviewing Bill Nye about a pair of radiation anomalies found a few years ago on the far side of the Moon:
Note several things in this clip: First, how they caught Bill off-guard when the host inappropriately brought up climate change in the discussion about the Moon (which has no atmosphere, and thus, no climate). Second, how they attempted to discredit Bill's response by asking (on the heels of the climate change question) why the volcanoes weren't erupting now (and how Bill Nye eloquently handled it). Finally, how they tried to slip in a presidential jab at the end by stating that at least we're still exploring space even with the shuttle fleet grounded, but cut off Bill Nye when he tried to explain why ending the shuttle program was a good thing.
All it takes is one fallacious sentence to sow a seed of doubt. Unfortunately, it requires a lot more effort to uproot the weed of misinformation once it takes hold. Vigilance is key.
By way of contrast, in the late 1980's I had the pleasure of having a conversation with NASA astronaut Dr. Millie Fulford, now a Professor at the UC Medical Center in San Francisco. Hughes-Fulford was the first woman to travel into space as a working scientist, or "payload specialist," in 1991.
At the time, I was selling scientific software for PC's, and one of our sales events included a booth at the annual Neuroscience meeting and trade show in Washington, D.C. (Although we both lived in Marin County, California, I ended up meeting Dr. Fulford 2,500 miles away in D.C.!) She walked up to our booth greeted me with a genuine smile and friendly hello, and an aura of focus and intelligence that almost left me speechless. She really challenged my knowledge of our scientific software products, and it was a chance encounter that I will never forget. (I believe that she has also worked to encourage girls and young women to study and work in fields of science.)
It is sad now that infotainment to maximize ratings and profit has huge audiences and real news programs struggle to survive. We live in a society that elevates the Barbie and Ken doll like news readers to iconic status and belittles those who prefer intelligent discourse over ridiculous and mindless verbal food-fights. I see that cultural tendency here with many of the younger WU-CC participants. However, there are some in the younger crowd who face AGW/CC seriously, and I hope they prevail.
This WU climate change blog/forum seems to be dominated by males, although the use of anonymous handles often obscures gender and leads to some humorous exchanges. Many of the males here, especially some of the younger ones, seem to treat it as a verbal soccer field with little focus on science and rational discussion. However, I am beginning to read reports that many children in elementary and high school are beginning to becoming aware of the disaster that AGW/CC holds for them, and in the next few years, we may see some interesting developments in attitudes but the younger generation towards the dangers of CC to our very civilization. Although it may be too late to stop the impending disaster, the most difficult task of these young people will be to break through the iron curtain of resistance to truth funded from the trillions of dollars of profit of the energy industry and those who depend on cheap fossil fuels.
I hope the younger generation can break through the sound-bites and B.S. of the Ken and Barbie-doll corporate-agenda newsreaders, because that generation and the next are the ones with the most to lose.
Perhaps, they are both mislead a bit about volcano eruptions and if they are connected to fossil fuels?
When the Ice Melts, the Earth Spews Fire
Dec. 19, 2012 It has long been known that volcanic activity can cause short-term variations in climate. Now, researchers at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (Germany), together with colleagues from Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) have found evidence that the reverse process also occurs: Climate affects volcanic activity. Their study is now online in the international journal Geology.
In 1991, it was a disaster for the villages nearby the erupting Philippine volcano Pinatubo. But the effects were felt even as far away as Europe. The volcano threw up many tons of ash and other particles into the atmosphere causing less sunlight than usual to reach Earth's surface. For the first few years after the eruption, global temperatures dropped by half a degree. In general, volcanic eruptions can have a strong short-term impact on climate. Conversely, the idea that climate may also affect volcanic eruptions on a global scale and over long periods of time is completely new. Researchers at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (Germany) and Harvard University in Massachusetts (USA) have now found strong evidence for this relationship from major volcanic eruptions around the Pacific Ocean over the past 1 million years. They have presented their results in the latest issue of the international journal "Geology."
The basic evidence for the discovery came from the work of the Collaborative Research Centre "Fluids and Volatiles in Subduction Zones (SFB 574). For more than ten years the project has been extensively exploring volcanoes of Central America. "Among others pieces of evidence, we have observations of ash layers in the seabed and have reconstructed the history of volcanic eruptions for the past 460,000 years," says GEOMAR volcanologist Dr Steffen Kutterolf, who has been with SFB 574 since its founding. Particular patterns started to appear. "There were periods when we found significantly more large eruptions than in others" says Kutterolf, the lead author of the Geology article.After comparing these patterns with the climate history, there was an amazing match. The periods of high volcanic activity followed fast, global temperature increases and associated rapid ice melting.
To expand the scope of the discoveries, Dr Kutterolf and his colleagues studied other cores from the entire Pacific region. These cores had been collected as part of the International Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) and its predecessor programmes. They record more than a million years of Earth's history. "In fact, we found the same pattern from these cores as in Central America" says geophysicist Dr Marion Jegen from GEOMAR, who also participated in the recent study.Together with colleagues at Harvard University, the geologists and geophysicists searched for a possible explanation. They found it with the help of geological computer models. "In times of global warming, the glaciers are melting on the continents relatively quickly. At the same time the sea level rises. The weight on the continents decreases, while the weight on the oceanic tectonic plates increases. Thus, the stress changes within in the Earth to open more routes for ascending magma" says Dr Jegen.
The rate of global cooling at the end of the warm phases is much slower, so there are less dramatic stress changes during these times. "If you follow the natural climate cycles, we are currently at the end of a really warm phase. Therefore, things are volcanically quieter now. The impact from human-made warming is still unclear based on our current understanding" says Dr Kutterolf. The next step is to investigate shorter-term historical variations to better understand implications for the present day.
Link
..
And have you ever insulted anyone on Dr Masters Forum ?
I can tell you , you have !
Glasshouses .....
if you want to insult others, do it. it's the internet. but don't be a flaming hypocrite and concurrently hand out condescending lectures to others about their tone.
i'm not asking tomball to "be nice", i'm asking her to live up to her own demands of others.
Hi CB: Yes, I read that too. Fascinating stuff. If it holds up in subsequent studies, it will definitely change our understanding of the interrelationship between tectonics and the cryosphere.
Another great thing about science is how it has the freedom to evolve when additional (reliable) information is collected. The film clip was created a few years ago, so I'm sure Bill Nye would be willing to amend his statement to include newer science.
Well, I can't say much about that, as the gals outnumber the guys in my area of science! :-)
Rare Christmas Snow for Dallas, OKC, Little Rock
Kristina Pydynowski
By Kristina Pydynowski, Senior Meteorologist
December 25, 2012; 5:08 AM
Not often does Dallas, Oklahoma City and Little Rock see snow on Christmas, but Mother Nature will defy those odds this year.
Residents of Dallas, Oklahoma City and Little Rock may find it hard to believe snow is on the way with the chance of a white Christmas less than five percent in all three cities.
However, kids and those young at heart will be happy to learn that snow will indeed fall today thanks to the arrival of a strengthening winter storm and noticeably colder air. On the other hand, travelers both on the ground and in the air are likely to greet that news with jeers.
Snow blankets Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, on January 3, 2013. The same winter weather system forced the closure of Interstate 10 in El Paso, Texas, just across the border from Juarez.
Snow will continue to evolve farther to the east as Christmas progresses, changing over from rain in Dallas during the afternoon and Little Rock in the evening. Around 3 inches of snow will whiten Dallas with 3-6 inches expected in Little Rock.
More than a half of a foot of snow will bury the northern and western suburbs of Little Rock.
The last time an inch or more of snow has fallen on Christmas in Little Rock as 1926 (2.5 inches).
For Oklahoma City, one has to go back to 1914 when 6.5 inches fell. The city technically had a white Christmas as recently as 2009 when 14 inches of snow was still on the ground following a Christmas Eve blizzard.
Yep, that's right, Iceagecoming. It snowed! Very good!
SEOUL - A prolonged cold spell sent the mercury plummeting throughout South Korea Thursday, with temperatures dropping to their lowest levels in decades, the country's weather agency said.
The South Korean capital city of Seoul recorded a temperature of minus 16.5 Celsius in the morning, the lowest in 27 years since a minus 16.9 C was recorded in 1986, the Korea Meteorological Administration said.
A cold wave watch for Seoul and its surrounding Gyeonggi Province, and a cold wave alert for the central part of the country have been issued, the agency said.
The morning low dropped to minus 24.3 C, the lowest temperature in the country, in Cheorwon, a mountainous town near the inter-Korean border, according to the KMA. Temperatures were recorded at minus 24.1 C in Paju, a border town in Gyeonggi Province, and minus 22.6 C in Chuncheon, Gangwon Province.
In Seoul, 136 injuries from falls were reported as of 8 a.m. Thursday, according to the Seoul Metropolitan Fire & Disaster Headquarters.
The low temperatures caused water pipes to freeze and burst across the country, including in Seoul where a total of 108 reports were filed overnight, it added.
The cold spell also hit North Korea, with the morning lows plunging to minus 22 C in some regions, according to the weather office.
Citizens in the North Korean capital city of Pyongyang saw the coldest weather with the morning low recorded at minus 19 C, the KMA said.
The severe cold weather was caused by a frigid continental high-pressure system and the chill from the northwestern region, the agency said.
The wave of exceptionally cold weather will continue and temperatures will remain lower than average all week, with morning lows in Seoul to hover around minus 14 C on Friday morning, it said.
Link
China chills hit 28-year low, trapping ships in ice
By: REUTERS
January 5, 2013 8:31 PM
Temperatures in China have plunged to their lowest in almost three decades, cold enough to freeze coastal waters and trap 1,000 ships in ice, official media said at the weekend.
Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius, 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency
Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration.
Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported.
Zheng Dong, chief meteorologist at the Yantai Marine Environment Monitoring Center under the State Oceanic Administration, told the paper that the area under ice in Laizhou Bay was 291 square km this week.
Transport around the country has been severely disrupted.
Over 140 flights from the state capital airport in central Hunan province were delayed, while heavy snowfall forced the closure of some sections of the Beijing-Hong Kong-Macau Expressway, the China Daily said.
Temperatures in the northeast fell even further, reaching a 43-year low of minus 15.3 degrees Celsius, about 3.7 degrees below the previous recorded average.
One truck driver in southeastern Jiangxi province, caught in a 5 km (3.1 miles) queue caused by a pileup that happened after heavy snowfall, told China Daily the snow and extreme cold had caught him unawares.
Link
Yep, that's right, Iceagecoming. It's cold in places around the world! Very good!
12:43p.m. EST January 4, 2013
New Delhi sees coldest temperature since 1969.
india cold
(Photo: Altaf Qadri AP)
Story Highlights
At least 114 people have died from the recent cold.
Temperatures as much as 18 degrees below average.
LUCKNOW, India (AP) -- More than 100 people have died of exposure as northern India deals with historically cold temperatures.
Police spokesman Surendra Srivastava said Thursday that at least 114 people have died from the recent cold in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Many were poor people whose bodies were found on sidewalks or in parks.
The weather department said temperatures were 7 to 18 degrees F below average in the state.
Temperatures in New Delhi, which borders Uttar Pradesh, hit a high Wednesday of 49.6 degrees F, the lowest maximum temperature in the capital since 1969.
Link
Sorry Daisy, it is the record cold, in this case across the northern hemisphere, that makes these not so easy to find empirical examples remarkable.
Good Day:) Heat Biased MSM.
I find it fascinating that you repeatedly post about local and regional cold WEATHER events at a CLIMATE change blog. All of these events are within the range of weather events predicted by modeling with the climate change scientific community, and their causes are quite well understood by climate change scientists.
Is it that you aren't knowledgeable enough to comment on why you think these events are significant with respect to AGW/CC science.
Is that because you simply don't understand the concept and science of AGW/CC? Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the concept that huge additions of HEAT to Earth's biosphere don't manifest 100% as atmospheric or surface temperature increases? Do you choose to ignore the obvious indicators of GW other than temperature measurements?
Or are you desperately trying to convince yourself that these events counter the overwhelming global scientific consensus that the earth's biosphere is in a period of rapid climate change, and that man is the primary cause of the current trend?
Another possibility - you are a denialist who is trying to plant seeds of doubt in those who are either uninformed or ignorant regarding AGW/CC science.
Do you even have the ability to state your case? I don't think you do, and based on your public record here at WU-CC, I'm not expecting an intelligent, articulate and informed reply.
Have you even done a cursory search for the causes of events such as the China cold snap? It happened last year as well, and here's a report from China Daily:
Hi TomballTXPride,
Have you been able to find any scientific evidence to back your claim that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the current global warming trend? It would be very helpful if you could provide that information, as many in the climate science community would rest easy with such knowledge.
Ah, ah, ah! :-) It doesn't work that way! It's already been proven unequivocally in the scientific literature that humans ARE responsible for the current climate change. Your suggestion in the previous blog entry that humans aren't responsible for 70-100% of the warming goes against the scientific evidence. Therefore, the onus is on YOU... the one MAKING the claim... to prove otherwise. And, as Goosegirl1 has mentioned, any evidence you post must pass muster under Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
There you go. Goosegirl1's challenge still stands. Show us why you are right.
On a side note: a recent study by a major university showed that the number of carriage returns/line feeds in any particular internet forum comment is inversely proportional to the substance contained in that comment. That certainly explains a whole lot...
Exactly how much evidence do we need to show you???? If you have been reading anything at all that we ALL have been posting, you would have evidence and then some.
But here we go again.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
I got all these from googling "how do we know humans are causing climate change." The links are from both the private sector and from the US government.
Better?
I think my latest reply will do that nicely, Tomball, but it's just repeating basic climate science points that have been stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. It gets really tiresome and irritating, and the answers to the insinuations and denial are easily found - almost all of them right here at the WU CC section with its good information and excellent links. Iceagecoming has demonstrated that he/she is not interested in scientific fact and truth. Rather he/she appears to be desperately trying to counter climate science with reports and articles that present a truly specious and utterly false insinuated argument. (If you don't know the definition of specious - look it up - it's a perfect fit for many of the denialists here.)
The regulars here who study and understand science and really, truly attempt to answer honest questions and counter fallacious and/or irrelevant posts - especially with new posters and old-timers with new questions. But sometimes it can be very frustrating when someone continually and repeatedly slings the same B.S. that has been REPEATEDLY PROVEN WRONG OR IRRELEVANT. Iceagecoming slings the same malarky and doesn't really deserve yet another scientific rebuttal - it's an agenda designed to plant seeds of doubt and waste time that could be better utilized by discussing the science and implications of AGW/CC and it's danger to our biosphere as a habitable place for humans.
Iceagecoming has not demonstrated a desire to learn and discuss science, but rather spams the WU/CC blog with marginally relevant cut-and-paste "news" reports and manages to sow dissent and evoke inappropriate (sarcastic?) responses. Unfortunately, this seems to be a goal - so the sower of doubt can counter with "they don't have an answer, so they resort to personal attacks." That's a known, standard propaganda tactic that Daisyworld has commented on several times.
I'm not sure what question, perhaps if you ask it again I will have an answer. I have been working a lot and not on as often for a few days. Perhaps if I read back?
As you can see, I already provided some links for her as requested.
That would be nice, Tomball. I think that it would also be nice if you were to do the same. Asking others to bring the science while you yourself have failed to do so is a bit disingenuous, is it not? And, again, if you choose to be the moderator, then you must moderate all sides. IceAge has almost always been polite but the others you have mentioned have not always lived up to what you expect of others. Name calling and snide remarks are not favorable in any conversation, but your continuously correcting a select few while ignoring others does not bring you any favor either.
Main thrust is more research needed to determine effects
"further progress in understanding ocean biogeochemical cycles will be required to refine the quantification of climate sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing."
(i.e. the science really is not settled at all)
Link
Enjoy!
If we are going with the American system of jurisprudence, then perhaps we need a judge and jury from outside the debate to weigh the evidence from both sides. You know, a group of people who have not heard of climate change and are asked to listen to both sides and make a decision.Link
Might I point out that I did not make a claim that 70 or any other percent of global warming was caused by human activities. I should not try to carry the burden of evidence for that claim. If you read over the links, though, climate scientists are 90% certain that human activities are to blame. But since I chose to butt into a conversation, I have tried to provide you with a bit of evidence.
LinkLink
and
Link
modified to clean up a whoopsie on the links, they were too crowded.
Do you even know what this paper is about? Not one word of it disputes anthropogenic global warming. Not ONE. They're simply discussing a model they ran about ocean circulation and concentration of dissolved gases.
Please, do your research before posting information you don't understand. In the words of Inigo Montoya:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk
People like Daisyworld and I - and Dr. Rood, Dr Masters and Neapolitan, to name a few others - accept the results of climate science research that lead to an OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS that global warming and climate change are real, and that the current trend is primarily caused by the fossil fuel emissions of mankind's energy consumption. The very sequestration of the CO2 that we are releasing to the atmosphere made the earth amenable to the rise of the human species and its evolution to our current technological society. But, paradoxically, that release of CO2 back to the atmosphere is destroying the characteristics of earth's biosphere that allowed us to evolve to where we are now.
Neither Daisyworld, Neapolitan, Dr. Rood, Dr. Masters, I, nor anyone else here needs to "prove" AGW/CC for you. Have you read the Climate Change section of WU carefully and critically? I doubt it! Have you read extensively at science-based websites such as Realclimate and skepticalscience - where the real science is explained and linked to? I doubt it! The answers you demand of Daisyworld indicate a total commitment to consciously refusing to find the easily found answers to your questions/
Why on earth won't you do the intelligent and logical thing and actually read about climate science and learn about the evidence you claim to so desperately want to learn about. You do not demonstrate that you have made any reasonable attempt to learn about climate science, yet you continue to play word games here and employ propaganda tactics. Why?
I can practically guarantee that you will whine and complain about my "personal attack" on you - another classical denialist technique. I can also guarantee that you WILL NOT READ UP ON THE SCIENCE OR AGW/CC - because then you would no longer be able to play your dumb game of demanding "proof" of AGW/CC from a particular WU/CC poster - a tactic that shows an extreme inability to participate in an intelligent debate.
Sorry for the harsh response, but like Daisyworld, I am really getting tired of your game-playing and refusal to learn about climate science. If you did some homework and came back to actually "join a discussion and debate" I would be delighted.
Edit: Tomball, you may be "playing a game" but I'm just trying to be logical about AGW/CC and have an intelligent discussion/debate. And that includes a focus on the psychology of illogical, unscientific, obfuscatory and even orchestrated AGW/CC denial.
TomballTXPride,
The case has been made countless times. Humans are responsible for putting out 50-100 times the natural volcanic source of CO2:
This is the evidence. It is supported by countless studies in the scientific literature. You, however, inserted the suggestion that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the warming. You need to explain why the science is wrong and you are right.
And... *presses stopwatch*... start....
Still at record low..
Still at record low...
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index